Relationships

Define the term "self-disclosure."

Self-disclosure - revealing personal information about oneself to another person with the general effect being an increase in attraction.

Describe the Social Penetration Theory

The SPT argues that relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone: it is a reciprocal exchange that only happens when sufficient trust has been established. Low risk information is shared early on, and higher risk information is shared later on as the relationship progresses.

Evaluate self-disclosure.

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence for several predictions about self-disclosure derived from Social Penetration Theory. For example, researchers studied dating couples and found strong correlations between satisfaction levels and self-disclosure for both partners. Men and women who used self-disclosure were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationships. Such research supports a link between relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure.

// However it could be argued that the conclusions reached are limited due to the research being correlational. It is uncertain whether the satisfaction was a result of self-disclosure or other factors. The lack of cause and effect means that we cannot confidently conclude that self-disclosure increases attraction in relationships.

+ Another strength is that research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. For example, romantic partners sometimes use self-disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond. Researchers found that romantic partners said that honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships. Therefore, if partners that are less-skilled at communication learn to use self-disclosure, then this could bring benefits to their relationships in terms of enhancing satisfaction and commitment. This means that self-disclosure as a concept has had practical applications to everyday life, as it could help to improve partner communications skills in intimate relationships.

- One limitation is that self-disclosure does not lead to more satisfying and intimate relationships in all cultures. For example, researchers found that couples in the USA self-disclosed significantly more than couples in China. Despite lower levels of self-disclosure in China, levels of satisfaction were no different from those in the US. Therefore, this shows that self-disclosure is not a requirement for successful relationships in all cultures, suggesting that other factors such as physical attractiveness may be more important, making the Social Penetration Theory ethnocentric.

Define the term "Halo Effect."

Halo effect - The idea that people who are judged to be attractive are typically perceived in a positive light and are assumed to possess desirable characteristics such as being intelligent, successful, kind and sociable.

Outline the Matching Hypothesis.

The Matching Hypothesis states that people choose romantic partners of similar attractiveness to themselves. The theory suggests that people assess their own level of attractiveness and then make a “realistic choice" and seek out a partner that is of a similar level of physical attractiveness, in order avoid rejection. The objective is to have the ideal, most attractive partner possible whilst also feeling secure in the relationship.

Evaluate physical attraction as a factor affecting attraction.

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence for the Halo Effect. For example, researchers found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable than unattractive people, even when participants knew that these “knowledgeable” people had no particular expertise. This highlights the importance of physical attraction, particularly the Halo Effect, adding validity to the concept.

- One limitation is that some people do not place much importance to physical attractiveness. Many people consider personality to be more important in a partner than appearance, reducing the face validity of physical attraction as a factor, Furthermore, a survey found that people in long term relationships highlighted kindness as their most valued trait in their partner. This shows that for lasting relationships, personality plays a more significant role than physical attraction, limiting its internal validity in explaining attraction.

+ Another strength is that the matching hypothesis has a level of universality across cultures. For example, researchers found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones and a small nose were rated as highly attractive across white, hispanic and Asian males. This suggests that the influence of physical attraction may have an evolutionary basis. Such intercultural consistency increases the generaliseability of physical attraction as a factor.

- Another limitation is that there is opposing evidence. For example researchers conducted an experiment where they measured actual online date choices. It seemed that people did not consider their own level of attractiveness when selecting potential partners, with people often choosing people who were more attractive than them. This can be explained by absence of gating, leading to greater confidence. This undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis as it contradicts its central predictions.

Outline the Filter Theory as an explanation of attraction.

Filter Theory proposes that we use filtering to reduce a field of availables to a field of desirables, using three levels of filtering: social demography, similarity in attitude and complementarity.

Social demography is the idea that initially, we filter out people who are unsuitable in terms of age, sex and education so we end up with people similar to ourselves.

Then, we choose people who have similar attitudes to our own- such as social, moral and political values.

In order for a relationship to progress to long term, we must select a parter who complements our own traits to enable the relationship to work effectively.

Evaluate the Filter Theory as an explanation of attraction.

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence. For example, researchers conducted a longitudinal study in which both partners completed questionnaires to assess two main factors: similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs. Relationship satisfaction was measured by another questionnaire later on. Results indicated that high levels of satisfaction were associated with similarity of values but only in couples who had been together for less than 18 months. For couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted satisfaction levels. This study provides evidence that similarity of attitudes is important in early stages but complementarity is importantly on.

// However, it could be argued that the study lacks validity. For example, the use of self report questionnaires raises the issue of social desirability bias. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, people may have been dishonest about their relationship satisfaction in order to appear more favorable. This means that the findings may not provide an accurate representation of the influence of similarity of attitude and complementarity of needs on relationship satisfaction, limiting the extent to which the study can support Filter Theory.

- One limitation is that there are contradictory theories of attraction. For example, the Matching Hypothesis places greater emphasis on seeking partners that are of a similar physical attractiveness to ourselves, in order to minimise the risk of rejection. This contradicts the central concept of Filter Theory that people gradually narrow down potential partners using filters. Therefore, this suggests that Filter Theory may not provide a complete explanation of relationship formation, as it may underestimate the importance of physical attractiveness when selecting a partner.

- Another limitation is that social changes have reduced the importance of social demographic variables. For example, the rise of online dating has changed the process of beginning a romantic relationship. Technology such as the dating apps have made meeting potential partners easier, to the extent that people may pursue partners outside of usual demographic limits. The theory therefore lacks temporal validity since social demographic factors such as proximity are less of a barrier in modern day relationships which the theory is unable to explain.

Outline Social exchange theory.

SET is an economic theory of romantic relationships that considers how partners exchange rewards and costs. The theory assumes that those who offer rewards are attractive and those who are perceived to involve great cost are less attractive. According to Thibault and Kelly, all relationships proceed through four stages: sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation. 

SET states that people use comparison level and comparison level alternatives to judge whether a relationship is worth pursuing. SET predicts that relationships that benefit both parties will succeed whereas relationships that are imbalanced will fail.

Evaluate Social exchange theory.

 - One limitation is that SET does not distinguish between two types of relationship. Exchange relationships (eg. between colleagues) do involve social exchange as SET predicts. But communal relationships (e.g. romantic partners) are marked by the reciprocal exchange of rewards, without the incentive to receive rewards. This transactional approach to explaining relationships oversimplifies the complex reality of romantic relationships. This suggests that the SET is a limited explanation of how humans form and maintain romantic relationships. 

- Another limitation is that SET argues that dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being “profitable”. According to SET, we become dissatisfied when we conclude that the costs of the relationship outweigh its rewards. However, researchers argued that we don't monitor costs and rewards until after we are dissatisfied. This suggests that considering costs is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse. This exposes a lack of cause and effect in the SET’s predictions of romantic relationships.

+ One strength is that there is research support. For example, researchers  asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. They found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive. This confirms the predictions from SET, reinforcing the validity of the theory in a range of romantic relationships.

- A final limitation is that SET deals with vague concepts. For example, costs and rewards have been defined superficially in research (eg. money) in order to measure them. However, psychological costs (eg being manipulative) and rewards (eg loyalty) are more difficult to define. Therefore, the attempt to operationalise and isolate these subjective factors reduces the validity of the theory, as they do not take into consideration the multitude of variable acting upon the relationship at once. This makes the theory unfalsifiable and difficult to test, limiting its scientific credibility as an explanation of romantic relationships.

Outline Equity theory.

ET is an economic theory of romantic relationships which developed in response to a significant criticism of SET. The term “equity” means fairness. According ET argues that what matters most is that both partners’ level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same. This is not the same as equality where levels of costs and rewards have to be the same for both partners. When there is a lack of equity, then one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits from the relationship, this causes dissatisfaction in both partners: the overbenefitter feels guilty and the underbenefitter feels resentful.

Evaluate Equity Theory. 

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence. For example, a survey of recently-married couples, measuring equity with self-report scales found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those couples who saw themselves as overbenefiting or underbenefiting. This provides support for equity theory, increasing its validity in explaining relationship satisfaction.

/ However, it could be argued that this research lacks validity. The use of self-report scales can lead to respondents being dishonest due social desirability bias, especially given the personal nature of relationships. For example, participants may underreport dissatisfaction to present themselves and their relationship favourably. This means their responses may not reflect their true feelings, reducing the validity of the findings, hence limiting the extent to which they can support equity theory.

- One limitation is that ET may not apply to all cultures. For example, researchers found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. It was found that couples from individualistic cultures considered their relationship to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners in collectivist cultures were most satisfied when they were underbenefiting. This shows that ET is ethnocentric and cannot be generalised beyond individualistic cultures, so should not be used to explain relationship satisfaction universally.

- Another limitation is that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Researchers found that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. These partners were described as “benevolents,” who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Such individuals have less concern about equity than the theory predicts, which suggests that ET cannot explain individual differences, making it a limited explanation for relationship satisfaction.

Outline Rusbult’s investment model. 

Rusbult expanded upon SET by proposing the Investment model, where commitment is a key factor in sustaining a relationship; commitment depends on

satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and most importantly, investment. Satisfaction is determined by available alternatives- better alternatives result in lower satisfaction levels. Investment deters a partner from leaving a relationship. There are two types: intrinsic (resources put into the relationship directly eg emotion and effort) and extrinsic (resources arising out of the relationship eg children, mutual friends and possessions bought together).

Additionally, Rusbalt identified Maintenance Mechanisms which partners use to keep relationships going such as:

• Accommodation

• Willingness to sacrifice

• Forgiveness

• Positive illusions

• Ridiculing alternatives 

Mnemonic: All Wizards Fear Psychology Revision

Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model.

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence. For example, researchers conducted a meta-analysis and found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment, and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships. This supports the validity of the model, suggesting that satisfaction, CL for alternatives and investment are universally important features of commitment to romantic relationships.

- One limitation is that the majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational. This means that psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships. This means the model lacks internal validity, as it cannot establish cause and effect. Therefore, it may not reliably predict when people stay in relationships or leave them.

+ Another strength is that the theory has real world applications. For example, women who had suffered DV were found to be more likely to return to an abusive partner if they had made the greater investments and had fewer alternatives. These women were dissatisfied with their relationships but were still committed to them. This supports the model's real-world value, as it can be applied to a wide range of relationships that SET and Equity Theory fail to explain.

- Another limitation is that the model does not account for all forms of investment. For example, researchers have suggested that investments in future plans should be included in the model. This is when individuals may be incentivised to commit to each other in the hopes that their plans for the future will work out. This suggests that the original model does not fully explain the complexity of investment in romantic relationships, as it fails to account for future plans and expectations.

- A final limitation is that Rusbult also failed to account for the importance of cultural expectations as an investment. For example, in collectivist cultures, people may feel invested in staying in their relationships out of pressure to adhere to their cultural norms due to stigma surrounding divorce. Therefore, the model can be argued to be ethnocentric, and thus a limited explanation of romantic relationships, as it fails to consider the complexity of investments across different cultures.

Outline Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown.

According to Duck, a relationship breakdown occurs in a sequence of four phases:

• Intra-psychic phase: one partner is internally dissatisfied, but keeps it to self and ruminates

• Dyadic phase: the problem is raised openly and discussed between partners. If is resolved, the relationship is repaired, if not, the break down continues

• Social phase: friends and family are told, and arrangements are settled. This is the period where negotiation takes place. 

• Grave dressing phase: post-relationship rationalisation of events and re-building. Each individual attempts to maintain a positive reputation. 
  
  

Evaluate Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. 

- One limitation is the use of retrospective data. For example, most research examining relationship breakdown is based uses questionnaires or interviews to ask participants about the break-up after it happened. People's memories may not be accurate and may be biassed by their current situation, meaning their answers may not be reliable. This means that, despite having support from research, Duck's model lacks validity and may not describe relationship breakdowns in the real world accurately.

- Another limitation is that research into relationship breakdowns raise ethical concerns. For example, violation of privacy- particularly if research involves victims of domestic abuse. There are also issues of protection from psychological harm, as participants may experience distress during the research. This makes relationship breakdown a socially sensitive topic that is difficult to investigate.

+ One strength is that the model has practical applications. For example, it has been utilised in couples’ counselling. Couples may be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase they are in. For example, during the intra-psychic phase, a person may benefit from focusing on the positive aspects of their partner's personality. This shows that Duck's model can be used to help couples contemplating a break-up improve their relationships and stay together.

- A final limitation is that although Duck proposed a sequence, the phases do not always occur in the same order. For example, some people may experience elements of the social phase before the dyadic phase, such as asking friends for their advice, which, according to Duck, should only occur after the dyadic phase. This suggests that the model is too rigid and inflexible, making it ungeneralisable to entire populations, as each person’s experience of a relationship breakdown is different.

Outline what psychological research has told us about online relationships.

There are two contrasting theories explaining how self-disclosure operates in online relationships: the Reduced Cues Theory and the Hyperpersonal Model.

The RCT states that online relationships have poorer levels of intimacy and delayed self-disclosure. Deindividuation happens when social norms are withdrawn because identities are concealed, reducing a person’s sense of individual identity. This leads to disinhibition due to them feeling freer from the constraints of social norms, causing them to act differently than they would in an interaction IRL.

The HM argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than IRL ones due to the effects of anonymity. Additionally, an online persona can be heavily manipulated and controlled, eg by selective self-presentation to portray themselves in a more desirable light. 

A gate, in the context of relationships, refers to any obstacle to the formation of a relationship, such as shyness, age, social background or physical attractiveness. Online, there is an absence of gating, which removes these factors, enabling online relationships to progress at a faster rate than relationships IRL.

Evaluate what psychological research has told us about online relationships.

+ Another strength is that absence of gating in online relationships may be particularly useful for shy people. Researchers found that people who scored highly on shyness and internet use perceived the quality of their friendships as high, whereas this correlation was absent for people with low shyness scores. This implies that online communication can help people overcome their timidness, potentially improving the quality of their IRL communication too.

- One limitation is that online and offline relationships are hard to isolate. For example, offline relationships influence what and how we choose to disclose online, and vice versa. This suggests that there may be fewer difference between online and IRL relationships than the theories would suggest. This makes research examining online relationships may be reductionist, as it fails to consider how online relationships on offline interactions interact.

- Another limitation is that research may be outdated. For example, most of the research examining online relationships was conducted in the 1990s and 2000s. As technology has changed significantly since then, consequently, the nature of online relationships has changed. For example, video calls and emojis can compensate for lack of IRL interaction. This lowers the temporal validity of research into online relationships, as the findings may no longer reflect advancements of modern technology and online communication.

- A final limitation is that absence of gating in online relationships could have negative consequences. For example, it is easier to present oneself in deceptive manner online than it is offline. This could result in young people, who may be naive, being put at risk by accessing age-restricted dating sites. This suggests that although the absence of gating may facilitate relationship formation, it can also make online relationships less reliable, as individuals may misrepresent themselves. Therefore, the benefits of reduced gating must be considered against the potential risks to users' safety.

Define what is meant by a “parasocial relationship.”

Parasocial relationship - refers to a one-sided relationship with a celebrity or fictional character. There is no reciprocity.

What are the levels of parasocial relationships according to the Celebrity Attitude Scale? 

• Entertainment-social: least intense level of celebrity worship. Celebrities are seen as sources of entertainment.

• Intense-personal: moderate level of parasocial relationships. At this level, a person has a more intense relationship with a celebrity 

• Borderline pathological: most intense level of parasocial relationships. Takes celebrity worship to an extreme- has obsessive fantasies about the celebrity and may engage in illegal activities such as stalking.

What are the two theories of parasocial relationships?

• Absorption-addiction model

• Attachment theory explanation

Outline the absorption-addiction model. 

People engage in celebrity worship to compensate for some deficiencies in their life, such as difficulty forming intimate relationships and give themselves and identity.

This model has two components: 

• Absorption: focusing intensively on the celebrity’s life to identify with them and seek fulfilment.

• Addiction: an obsessive striving for stronger/closer involvement with the celebrity, leading to more extreme behaviours like stalking.

Evaluate the absorption-addiction model. 

+ One strength is that there is supporting evidence. For example, researchers found that teenage girls at the intense-personal level of celebrity worship tended to have a poor body image, especially if they admired a celebrity's physical appearance. This supports the absorption-addiction model, as teenagers may use celebrity worship to escape from the reality of poor body image. 

- One limitation is the use of self-report methods. Much of the research into parasocial relationships utilises interviews and questionnaires, which may not reflect the true picture, as participants may answer in a way that reflects them in a better light, due to social desirability bias. This limits the extent to which the research can provide support for the explanations underlying parasocial relationships.

+ Another strength is that celebrity worship seems to describe a universal phenomenon. For example, researchers studied levels of parasocial relationships with characters from the Harry Potter books in different cultures and found similar patterns. This suggests that research into celebrity worship has universal applications, leading to high population validity, as such researcher can be used to explain parasocial relationships across different cultures.

- Contradicting theory: attachment theory explanation

Outline the attachment theory explanation.

According to the attachment theory explanation, parasocial relationships can be linked to attachment problems in childhood, particularly the insecure-resistant type. Bowlby noted that insecure attachment can lead to later problems, e.g. affectionless behaviour and a poor internal working model of relationships. People with childhood attachment problems may form parasocial relationships to meet their need for affection. Such relationships do not involve the same fear of rejection as real-life relationships, which explains why insecurely attached individuals are more likely to seek them.

Evaluate the attachment theory explanation. 

- One limitation is the use of self-report methods. Much of the research into parasocial relationships utilises interviews and questionnaires, which may not reflect the true picture, as participants may answer in a way that reflects them in a better light, due to social desirability bias. This limits the extent to which the research can provide support for the explanations underlying parasocial relationships.

+ Another strength is that celebrity worship seems to describe a universal phenomenon. For example, researchers studied levels of parasocial relationships with characters from the Harry Potter books in different cultures and found similar patterns. This suggests that research into celebrity worship has universal applications, leading to high population validity, as such researcher can be used to explain parasocial relationships across different cultures.

- Contradicting theory: absorption-addiction model